Solar Manufacturing Co.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Dec 6, 1954

110 N.L.R.B. 1188 (N.L.R.B. 1954)

1188 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
SOLAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY and INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF MACHINISTS , FOR AND IN BEHALF OF DISTRICT #94, AFL, PETI-
TIONER. Case No. 21-RC-3622. December 6,1954
Decision and Order
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Louis A. Gordon, hearing
officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free from
prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The labor organizations involved claim to represent employees
of the Employer.'
3. No question affecting commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act, for the follow-
ing reasons :
The Petitioner, herein called the IAM, seeks a unit of all tool- and
die-makers, machinists, and their helpers at the Employer's Vernon,
California, plant, excluding all other employees and supervisors as
defined in the Act. The Employer and the IBEW contend that their
current contract, as clarified by a suplemental agreement on May 27,
1954, is a bar to this proceeding.'
The contract, which by its terms covers "all production and main-
tenance employees" and extends until May 31, 1955, was executed on
June 22, 1953, at a time when the Employer did not have a machine
shop. Subsequent to that date, the toolmakers and maintenance ma-
chinists were hired. However, they were not required to join the-
IBEW, as provided in the union-shop clause in the contract, until
May 27, 1954, when the Employer and the IBEW signed a supple-
mental agreement stating that these and certain other named em-
ployees "shall be deemed covered by [the] collective bargaining [con-
tract], effective as of this date." Five days later, on June 1, the IAM
requested recognition by bargaining agent for these employees, and
on June 4, filed its petition.
The employees now sought by the IAM are typical and necessary
categories found in manufacturing plants of the kind here involved.
It is reasonable therefore to view them as but normal accretions to the
existing production and maintenance bargaining unit, such as the
'International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union 1710, AFL, herein.
called IBEW. intervened at the hearing
a In view of our disposition of the case , we do not pass on the Employer 's and IBEw's-
contention that the unit is inappropriate
110 NLRB No 188.
COLUMBIA-SOUTHERN CHEMICAL CORPORATION 1189
parties to an overall collective-bargaining contract necessarily contem-
plated might be added in the regular operation of the plant. In any
event, they were expressly included in the coverage of the contract,
by written agreement, before the JAM made any claim to represent
them. Although the contract, as clarified, does not specify the wage
rates for the tool- and die-makers and the machinists, it details the
other conditions of employment. In these circumstances, we are satis-
fied, contrary to the contention of the IAM, that the resultant contract
fully stabilizes labor relations between the parties as to all the produc-
tion and maintenance employees.' Accordingly we find that the pres-
ent contract is a bar to this proceeding. We shall therefore dismiss the
petition.
[The Board dismissed the petition.]
3 Billboard Publishing Company, 108 NLRB 182.
COLUMBIA-SOUTHERN CHEMICAL CORPORATION and HARRY E. ROBERTS,
AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL., PETITIONER and INTERNATIONAL CHEMICAL
WORKERS UNION7 LOCAL #45, AFL. Case No. 6-RD-106. Decem-
ber 6, 1954
Decision and Direction of Election
Upon a petition duly filed under Section 9 (c) of the National Labor
Relations Act, a hearing was held before Sidney Lawrence, hearing
.officer. The hearing officer's rulings made at the hearing are free
from prejudicial error and are hereby affirmed.
Upon the entire record in this case, the Board finds :
1. The Employer is engaged in commerce within the meaning of
the Act.
2. The Petitioner, an employee of the Employer, asserts that the
Intervenor, International Chemical Workers Union, Local #45, AFL,
herein called the Union, is no longer the bargaining representative
of the guard employees designated in the petition, as defined in Sec-
tion 9 (a) of the Act.
3. A question concerning commerce exists concerning the represen-
tation of employees of the Employer within the meaning of Section
9 (c) (1) and Section 2 (6) and (7) of the Act.
The Union has been the collective-bargaining representative of the
Employer's production and maintenance employees and of the Em-
ployer's guard employees since 1946.1 These two groups of employees
1 The Board certified the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative for the unit
of production and maintenance employees in August 1952 following a consent election.
The guard unit has never been certified.
110 NLRB No. 195.